Forum Post: I say this of free market capitalism and limited government regulation
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 11:53 p.m. EST by cincyguy
(8)
from Covington, KY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
To anyone who stands on the ideological grounds that markets should be free and that government should have limited to no regulation of personal property, I say this:
The land of the earth and all of its natural resources are the exclusive property of no one. All wealth and the cornerstone of any market or economy begins with the social contract, enforced by a government, that grants individuals the temporary stewardship of that land and resources which are required to produce any product. This social contract is not and should not be without stipulations.
I'm sure this statement is made much more eloquently by many past philosophers, and if someone could post quotations and or references to such writings, please do so!
To those who think the OWS movement lacks clarity:
1) Tax the rich.
2) Get money out of politics.
3) Give control of the banks to government, not the other way around.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.'”
~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Declaration of Independence - we should follow our own laws - most of our problems would be solved.
Theodore Roosevelt understood your message, doubt there are any Republicans running with this philosophy in mind.
They'd call him a SOCIALIST! and have him investigated..."Round up this Rousseau guy too!" LOL.
With a little bit of paraphrasing, you said above that "All wealth ... begins with the social contract, enforced by government, that grants individuals ... the stewardship.. required to produce any product".
Do you really think that that is true?
I do. My good friend Rousseau as well.
Social contract.
Grants.
Stewardship.
I was looking to understand the gist of it from your viewpoint. Through the social contract, grants, and stewardship wouldn't you say that a person would have to concede his right to his life and his property to society and rely on society to figure out somehow what's best for him?
Absolutism.
Balance in all things, which is at the core of the social contract. The sacrifice of some liberty for the better outcome and fuller expression of natural rights in a society than one would have in a state of nature.
I'll get back to you tomorrow and I thank you for expressing your views. Till then...
Didn't Rousseau die indebted to all his former friends?
Which is why he was a good friend. ;)
Philosophy has never paid.
But who is to determine the "stipulations"?
Sounds like an attack on capitalism which is not a bad thing. I can dig it. Property is communal or to be held in common for the benefit of all: Communism. Course, at its heart, this is a spiritual proposition demanding discipline and responsibility along with self-reliance. There are communities of people who live like this in significant harmony (there are exceptions and recent ones at that).
Capitalism is not a bad thing. Personal property and financial rewards are necessary, given human nature, to achieve the highest levels of production. What too many forget, is the social contract which allows for personal property.
It is my belief that the granting of personal property rights should never exceed more than any individual is capable of utilizing, and those property rights if used to the detriment of society, should be revoked.
"Capitalism is not a bad thing. Personal property and financial rewards are necessary, given human nature, to achieve the highest levels of production."
This was true when man's labor was necessary for menial tasks. However with automation/mechanization, tasks which would have required 100s of men to perform (rowing a ship/ harvesting crop) can be performed by fewer than a handful due to technological advances. In fact many of these tasks can be automated completely so productivity of mundane tasks no longer requires man. A high tech society could run purely off of volunteers.
Besides, intellectual tasks are performed better when the motivation originates internally rather than through financial means. e.g. open source movements
In anycase, access to man's necessities are what's required. Money in this age of advanced technology only serves to restrict access and generates an incentive for groups to create artificial scarcity when an abundance of a potential product exists. e.g. crop destruction, planned obsolescence, etc.
Pretty broad and ambiguous I think. What do you mean by utilizing? By most capitalist definitions, that would allow most of what goes on today. What is the difference? Sounds like in degree only. Would not make the world that much more of an improved place. Capitalism by nature is exploitative: of humans and resources. That it can improve lives, yes, materially, but not emotionally or spiritually. And in the end, those needs supersede the rational, the reasonable, the ethical. We need more of a balance and a reversion to a more organic life. As long as plutocrats are in charge (which they are now) and capitalists run amuck seeking profits and such, humanity is very limited. It won't and can't last. And, it appears, the closer we get to world integrated capitalistic system, so the seeds of a new reality are sown, of a new revolutionary movement building to demand and incorporate the needs of ALL persons (not corporations) not just the richest, most powerful caste or class. We don't need the greatest level of production. Production for the sake of production is really for the sake of profits. The question is whether we work to live (Marx/humanists//utopians) or we live to work (capitalists). Under capitalist, the means have become the ends. As a transitory phase, we can must accept capitalism as a phase of human history but one, ultimately, to be regulated and limited by the State. For example, the essentials should be under State control or quasi state control: utilities, transportation, food, housing, health care. Education and others must meet standards (all children can read and write and think by age 12 or so, that means to proficiency). The materialism we experience today is corrupting the society and is a consumeristic degradation of our true humanity. Humans are easily manipulated, So, the ultimate question is for what and to whom. Right now, the capitalist class controls the destiny of millions and for what: largely profits. This is not healthy. And, in the end, will fail. I may take a while but it can and will not last.
So who gets to make the rules and lord over the rest of us? Direct democratic process? I find it amusing that so many people including yourself apparently believe that you are so much smarter than the people who actually put together what turned out to be the greatest founding document in human history. Honestly I think you need to read Adam Smith more closely and check out Basitat and DeToqueville as well.
I'm sure of course that this post will further secure my position as a "troll" because of my dissenting opinion and recommendations for enlightenment.
Adam Smith: progressive taxation.
Alexis de Tocqueville: "How the Americans combat individualism by the principle of self-interest, rightly understood" (as the common good)
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. Alexis de Tocqueville
Damn those egalitarian founding fathers.
Oh, and that's a slight misquote.
The quote was not in reference to the founders but to the people and their silliness towards applying the premise of equality to everything outside of opportunity as proven by this.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. Alexis de Tocqueville
and this
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Alexis de Tocqueville
I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all. -Alexis de Tocqueville
I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property. - Alexis de Tocqueville
Also:
Among these widely differing families of men, the first that attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power, and in enjoyment, is the white, or European, the MAN pre-eminently so called, below him appear the Negro and the Indian. - Alexis de Tocqueville
And:
If there ever are great revolutions there, they will be caused by the presence of the blacks upon American soil. That is to say, it will not be the equality of social conditions but rather their inequality which may give rise thereto. - Alexis de Tocqueville
(So maybe take it all with a grain of salt)
And you see support of what in these quotes? Anti-egalitarianism of the founders? Or the lack of societal equality? No one ever guaranteed that your neighbor would treat you as an equal. They don't have to. The government does have to treat everyone as equals. The rich, poor, black, white, christian, jewish, doesn't matter to the government but society has no obligation to practice egalitarianism whatsoever. To force such practice is to inhibit freedom not promote it.
I'm pointing out progressivism, as well as inconsistency and plain wrong-thinking.
Progressivism does not coincide with leftism. Tocqueville is clear about that. What inconsistency and wrong thinking were you pointing out. Obviously he was a proponent of capitalism and a commentator of the social problems within the young USA. But I'm interested in what you believe I am wrong about assuming that's what you meant.
Progressivism: "every new theory as a danger" which is how you treat any deviation from strict adherence to free market ideology.
He's pointing out the problem of greed, which speaks for itself, and goes with his quote on self-interest, rightly understood. This is inconsistent with his thoughts on equality as slavery. That's fine, he saw problems at both extremes - because he was talking about extreme equality on one end and extreme self-interest/individualism on the other, as equally problematic.
I think the rest should speak for itself. Racist. It speaks to the danger in obsessing over the thoughts of 18th-19th century thinkers, and in deifying them.
First of all, I'm not sure how you find my statements to be contrary to this countries founding documents.
Secondly, as best as my memory recalls, Adam West -correction- Adam Smith does not first explain why the use of public resources to create personal wealth are justified before he begins "building his case".
Third, I believe in representative government, not a direct democratic process. It should however be on a MUCH larger scale that is impossible to control and influence. My first thoughts are for it to be a required component of any state or nationally funded higher education program, where the senior class of every major public institution is responsible for though-full debate, which in tern sends representatives to the state and then national level.
Adam west? The original batman?
Haha :) Must still have Halloween on my mind :)
U went as Adam west batman?
No, but someone at work did.
Ok, cause I know for sure the real batman is a free market super hero
Not necessarily smarter than our founding fathers. But we live in 2011. They lived in 1787. The constitution was amended 17 times for a reason. Things change. Time for a few more.
I'm all for updating the Constitution for the times. So long as it's done via the proper process that requires super majority's in the Congress and among the states.
why dont you get your head out of your butt and read a book on philosophy because that's what this topic is about - about basic human rights
Right I never read philosophy at all but I listed 3 different philosophers as suggestions for reading. Thanks for your opinion.
disturbing that anyone would actually think adam smith was worth listening to let alone confuse him as a social philosopher, everyone knows wealth of nations is an economics basic but it's archaic and outdated.
i dont remember if i was replying to you, but thank you for proving my point, you obviously have not taken a class on philosophy or know what it is because those 3 people you listed are economic and political theorists, NOT philosophers (social/ethics), please read a book on real ethics/philosophy, such as rousseau's on the social contract. economics and politics have nothing to do with fundamental human rights
I believe what you mean to say is I should read a book by a marxist philosopher. No thanks.
read a philosopher, ADAM SMITH IS AN ECONOMIST, go to school for gods sake, how can anyone think that he is a philosopher? what crack pipe are you smoking? how is rousseau marxist? he was born way before karl marx, do you even know who rousseau is, you uneducated hick? philosophy is the study on life, Plato and Socrates are philosophers, do not compare them to idiots like smith and tocqueville, they are economists, please go back to high school and try to read a book on basic ethics, morals, and social philosophy
This is another great post. Excellent points.
Your philosophy is flawed on several counts.
[Removed]
by socialist philosophers perhaps.
The government doesn't OWN me or my Property, in America, and has no Authority to grant temporary or permanent "stewardship" of that which doesn't belong to it. WE create our government and WE decide how much power it should have, NOT the other way around.
YOU are on a dangerous path twords "1984" via the liberal/Socialist toll road.
1984: Written by a socialist.
We is not you. You are but a small part of we. You are not an island. We, the governed, the majority, consent to government protecting the greater part of our liberty and property for the sacrifice of a little, to promote the general welfare. That is the social contract. You are not sovereign, and your will and your interests are only one small portion of the body politic.
when you get a little older, and off mamas tit. you may not be so ready to give up your freedoms for the security the socialist dream promises.
How old do you think I am?
I am not a socialist. I am a liberal. Not that you see the difference, nor hate me the less. Do you really think the 1940s-1970s were that terrible? Did you not feel free then?
you are correct in saying that I can't see a difference between a socialist and a liberal. and yes I think both are anti american
unfortunately - community property is the most exploited & abused out there. when no one owns property - everyone thinks they need to take for themselves before everyone else does. look at rental housing compared to people who own their homes. Which neighborhoods are kept nicer?
The tragedy of the commons is one of the best arguments for government regulation I know of. Check out the tragedy section:
http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html
Truth.
[Removed]
Our constitution says we CAN own the Earth and natural resources under it. Thank God for that, and that you morons can't change it.